From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: a failing pm_runtime_get increases the refcnt?
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:59:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0i87NGcy9+kxubScdPDyByr8ypQWcGgBFn+V-wDd69BHQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUadYRNYdJ9JUX90Z1jvtHZmSS4gM+JKft4x-BK2Ry4zQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:00 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 11:43 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:10 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > both in the I2C subsystem and also for Renesas drivers I maintain, I am
> > > > starting to get boilerplate patches doing some pm_runtime_put_* variant
> > > > because a failing pm_runtime_get is supposed to increase the ref
> > > > counters? Really? This feels wrong and unintuitive to me.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that is a well known issue with PM (I even have for a long time
> > > a coccinelle script, when I realized myself that there are a lot of
> > > cases like this, but someone else discovered this recently, like
> > > opening a can of worms).
> > >
> > > > I expect there
> > > > has been a discussion around it but I couldn't find it.
> > >
> > > Rafael explained (again) recently this. I can't find it quickly, unfortunately.
> >
> > I _think_ this discussion, but may be it's simple another tentacle of
> > the same octopus.
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-tegra/patch/20200520095148.10995-1-dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn/
>
> Thanks, hadn't read that one! (so I was still at -1 from
> http://sweng.the-davies.net/Home/rustys-api-design-manifesto ;-)
>
> So "pm_runtime_put_noidle()" is the (definitive?) one to pair with a
> pm_runtime_get_sync() failure?
If you bail out immediately on errors, then yes, it is.
If you'd rather to something like
ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
if (ret < 0)
goto fail;
... code depending on PM ...
fail:
pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
then it will still work correctly.
It actually doesn't matter which pm_runtime_put*() variant you call
after a pm_runtime_get_sync() failure, but the _noidle() is the
simplest one and it is sufficient.
> > > > I wonder why we
> > > > don't fix the code where the incremented refcount is expected for some
> > > > reason.
> > >
> > > The main idea behind API that a lot of drivers do *not* check error
> > > codes from runtime PM, so, we need to keep balance in case of
> > >
> > > pm_runtime_get(...);
> > > ...
> > > pm_runtime_put(...);
>
> I've always[*] considered a pm_runtime_get_sync() failure to be fatal
> (or: cannot happen), and that there's nothing that can be done to
> recover. Hence I never checked the function's return value.
> Was that wrong?
No, it wasn't. It is the right thing to do in the majority of cases.
> [*] at least on Renesas SoCs with Clock and/or Power Domains.
Cheers!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-14 13:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-14 9:07 RFC: a failing pm_runtime_get increases the refcnt? Wolfram Sang
2020-06-14 9:34 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-06-14 9:42 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-06-14 10:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-06-14 10:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-06-14 10:44 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-06-14 12:42 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-06-14 13:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2020-06-14 14:07 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-06-30 19:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-06-14 13:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJZ5v0i87NGcy9+kxubScdPDyByr8ypQWcGgBFn+V-wDd69BHQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wsa@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).